Message-Id: <199907220451.EAA27350@out5.ibm.net>
From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To: binutils AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:51:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: DJGPP and alignment
In-reply-to: <19990722003428.12362.qmail@daffy.airs.com>
References: <199907220030 DOT AAA09334 AT out5 DOT ibm DOT net> (snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com)
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Or it would if .ctors and .dtors were not specially handled in
> coff_new_section_hook in coffcode.h.  So you're OK on constructors and
> destructors if you do indeed use the section names .ctors and .dtors.
> 

Ouch, we don't. Our linker script has .ctor and .dtor (yep, no 's'). I just 
checked out DJGPP's config files from cvs and sure enough it's .ctor 
and .dtor that are emitted. I suppose either a test for .ctor and .dtor 
would have to be added in the COFF new section hook, or gcc can be 
changed for 3.0 to emit .ctors and .dtors and then fixup the linker script 
so either would work. 

At any rate, I'd like to hear from the DJGPP folks before deciding 
whether or not to proceed with the patch given the conflict.

Mark

--- 
Mark Elbrecht, snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com
http://snowball.frogspace.net/